Yu v. Vassar College Case Summarily Dismissed

Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2015-04-01 04:37

Wow, I have read some really, really BAD judicial decisions in my life, but this one makes me feel like I'm getting ready to crash and bleed out. Seriously, read it and weep. Short version: Yu is male, therefore, he's guilty. It matters not one iota the exculpatory evidence or the double-standards being applied. I challenge anyone to locate a case wherein a female accused another female under the same conditions and the accussee was expelled, or a case of a male doing likewise to a male or a male to a female. It's only she-accuses-him cases that generate these kinds of embarrassingly ludicrous travesties of justice. Be sure to take some airsick meds before reading this one but keep a bucket handy nearby in case they don't kick in in time.

Oh yes, and about the ruling judge, Ronnie Abrams: she got her appointment upon recommendation from none other than Kirsten Gillibrand. Surprise, surprise! Not.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

If you ever see a drunk woman walking around, just run. Leave her there and run the hell away. It's too dangerous to care about her safety when she can very well ruin your life with a false accusation.

I am flabbergasted at how the facebook messages were dismissed. They basically proved that she consented - she initiated a conversation with him after the fact where she apologized for leading him on. Sounds like a victim to me! [/s]

Wow. I think male college students really ought to adopt an attitude of complete apathy toward dating coeds. It seems that's the only way to avoid disasters like this. Perhaps when these college girls can't take being lonely anymore they'll do something about these ridiculously biased laws where a man is always guilty regardless whatever exculpatory evidence exists.

PS Gillibrand and her ilk should do the world a favor, get lost, and go to a planet where logic is synonymous with emotional bigotry.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Wed, 2015-04-01 20:17

Sometimes a bit of truth comes out in these court decisions and the gender of the parties will get mentioned as such, but mostly to avoid creating an appeal basis, judges will move to forestall the approach by denying ahead of time that they are using a kind of thinking that can be attacked on appeal.  This looks like that kind of decision.  Point is, an accused male is guilty ipso facto.  Refutation, if it is to happen, must happen shortly after the purported assault and so the accusation must also have been made shortly after the purported offense.  In cases like this one where the accusation is made long afterward, strangely enough and contrary to actual criminal precedent, the accusation becomes even more credible based on the "trauma" argument.  Up is down and east is west, at least on college campuses where sexual assault accusations are concerned.

Notice Yu's getting expelled was upheld as a matter of course.  The finding showed the exculpatory evidence in it and still, the finding upheld the decision.  That is how perverted the justice system has become in pandering to campus feminists.  Ultimately, any university, esp. a private one, is supposed to be allowed to keep, admit, or deny entry to itself regardless of what others think.  However that notion was vacated decades ago when private school admission policies restricting entry by gender or ethnicity were forcibly set aside by rule of law or court finding.  So the gov't has already set the precedent of allowing itself the right to intervene in schools' affairs if it sees injustice being done to an actual or potential student via discriminatory behavior against them.  In this case, since the discriminated-against student is male and the context is sexual assault accusation by a female, suddenly, the court as gov't agent is loathe to uphold the rights of the now-former male student even when the evidence clearly points to that as being in the interests of justice.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2015-04-02 01:35